Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 22, 2016 | 讬状讟 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 114

More laws relating to dealings with non Jews – do you need to return items to non Jews, do you need to correct a mistake that he made in your favor? 聽Rava brings 5 laws that relate to how we view the halacha of Shmuel that the law of the land is the law – if a non Jewish regime takes money from one person when they weren’t the ones who owed the money (or not by Jewish law), is it considered that they own the money or not? 聽The mishna says if someone steals and gives you a different item in return, if the owner despaired of getting it in return, you can keep the item. 聽The mishna doesn’t distinguish between theft and robbery and it can be derived from the mishna that if we don’t know that the owners despaired, we assume they haven’t. 聽This (and a another mishna that is brought) seems to contradict Raba’s reading of a different argument in masechet keilim between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis who each think that there is reason to distinguish between theft and robbery in this issue. 聽various answers are brought, among them they introduce a new opinion of Rebbi who equates the two. 聽The mishna also brought a a swarm of bees who fly into someone else’s property聽and that is discussed. 聽A woman and minor are believed in this case. 聽As a result, the gemara gets into a discussion of why they are believed in this case when in general we don’t accept their testimony. Study Guide Bava Kamma 114

讗驻讜诪讗 讚讞讚 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讞讚 讗讘诇 讘转专讬 诇讗 讜讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讚诪讙讬住转讗 讗讘诇 讘讬 讚讜讜讗专 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讚 讗诪讜诪转讗 砖讚讜 诇讬讛

based on the word of one witness, which is insufficient evidence according to Jewish law. And we said that this is so only when one individual testifies alone against his fellow Jew, but when two witnesses testify against a Jew, we do not excommunicate them, as their testimony is sufficient evidence according to Jewish law as well, and they have not caused the defendant any unjustified financial loss even according to halakha. And in a case of a single witness also, we said that we excommunicate him only if he testified in a court of villagers [demagista], but if he testified in the official government courthouse [bei davar], he is not excommunicated. This is because they also prescribe an oath to the defendant based on the testimony of a single witness, but they do not expropriate money, in accordance with Jewish law.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讚住诪讻讬 注诇讬讛 讻讘讬 转专讬 诪驻拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪砖转诪讬讟 诇讛讜 讜诪爪讬 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi said: When I was in the academy of Rav Huna, the following dilemma was raised before us: What is the halakha with regard to an important person, whose testimony is relied upon by the gentile courts as if it were the testimony of two witnesses? Since the gentile court will expropriate money based on his word, should the halakha be that he should not testify? Or perhaps, since he is an important person, he cannot escape the authorities who demand his testimony, and he may therefore testify. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 诇讙讜讬 讗诪爪专讗 讚讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讞讘专讬讛 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讝讘讬谉 诪讙讜讬 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讙讜讬 诇讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

搂 The Gemara cites another situation where a Jew is excommunicated for causing harm to another Jew. Rav Ashi said: In the case of a Jewish man who sells a gentile a plot of land that is on the border of the property of his fellow Jew, we excommunicate him. What is the reason? If we say it is because he has ignored the right of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field, but doesn鈥檛 the Master say: With regard to one who purchases land from a gentile, and one who sells land to a gentile, there is no right of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field?

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讬转 诇讬 讗专讬讗 讗诪爪专讗讬 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚讗转讬 诪讞诪转讬讛

Rather, it is because we say to him on behalf of the owner of the adjacent field: You have placed a lion, i.e., a dangerous individual, on my border, as the gentile might now cause me harm. Consequently, we excommunicate him until he accepts upon himself responsibility for all harm that comes upon the neighbor due to the gentile鈥檚 activities.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讟诇讜 诪讜讻住讬谉 讗转 讞诪讜专讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讜 讞诪讜专 讗讞专 谞讟诇讜 诇住讟讬诐 讗转 讻住讜转讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讜 讻住讜转 讗讞专转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪转讬讬讗砖讬谉 诪讛谉 讛诪爪讬诇 诪谉 讛谞讛专 讗讜 诪谉 讛讙讬讬住 讗讜 诪谉 讛诇住讟讬谉 讗诐 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讻谉 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 讗诐 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

MISHNA: If customs collectors took one鈥檚 donkey and gave him a different donkey that was taken from another Jew in its stead, or if bandits took his garment and gave him a different garment that was taken from a Jew in its stead, these items are now his because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen, and they may therefore be acquired by another. In a case of one who salvages items from a river, or from a troop [hagayis] of soldiers, or from bandits, if the owners of the items despaired of retrieving them, they are his, i.e., they belong to the one who salvaged them. And so too, with regard to a swarm of bees, if the owners despaired of retrieving the bees, they are his, i.e., they belong to the one who found them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗砖讛 讗讜 拽讟谉 诇讜诪专 诪讻讗谉 讬爪讗 谞讞讬诇 讝讛 讜诪讛诇讱 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛爪讬诇 讗转 谞讞讬诇讜 讜讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 讗转 住讜讻讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka said: A woman or a minor, whose testimony is not generally accepted by the court, is deemed credible to say: It was from here that this swarm emerged, and it therefore belongs to a certain individual. And one may walk into another鈥檚 field in order to salvage his own swarm of bees that has relocated there, and if he damaged some property in the process, he must pay for what he has damaged. But if the bees settled on a branch of a tree, he may not cut off the other鈥檚 branch in order to take the bees, even on the condition that he will later give him the money for it. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: He may even cut off the branch and later give him the money for it as compensation.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讗诐 谞讟诇 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 拽住讘专 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜诪注讬拽专讗 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who is given an item by a customs collector or a bandit may keep the item. It was taught in a baraita: If he took a donkey from the customs collector, he must return it to the original owners. The Gemara explains: The tanna of this baraita holds that despair alone does not effect legal acquisition. Consequently, the customs collector did not acquire the donkey, and it initially came into the possession of the individual to whom the customs collector gave it illegally, and he is therefore required to return it to the original owner.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诐 讘讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 拽谞讬 诪讬讛讜 讗讬 讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘诪诪讜谉 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讬 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐

And there are those who say that the baraita means that if he wants to act beyond the letter of the law and comes to return it voluntarily, he should return it to the original owners, but he is not required to return it. What is the reason that he is not required to return it? It is because despair alone effects legal acquisition and the donkey was, therefore, acquired by the Jew when the customs collector gave it to him. Nevertheless, if he said: I do not want to accept money that is not mine, he returns it to the original owners.

讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇住讟讬诐 讙讜讬 讗讘诇 诇讬住讟讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 住讘专 诇诪讞专 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if customs collectors or bandits replaced one鈥檚 item with one taken from another Jew, these items are now his because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. In this regard, Rav Ashi says: They taught that the owners certainly despaired of recovering their property only when it was stolen by a gentile bandit, but if it was taken by a Jewish bandit, no, the owner did not necessarily despair of recovering it. This is because the victim of the theft might reason: Tomorrow, I will take him to court and force him to return what he stole.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讙讜讬诐 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讘讙讬转讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讗砖 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬诪专 诪讬讬讗砖

Rav Yosef objects to this: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable: When dealing with gentiles, who judge a case and impose their verdicts with force, he does not despair because he realizes that the gentile court will enforce the law. By contrast, when dealing with a Jew, since Jewish courts merely pronounce a verbal decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim despairs of recovering his property.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬转诪专 讛诪爪讬诇 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讜诪谉 讛诇住讟讬诐 讗诐 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 住转诪讗 诇讗

Rather, if Rav Ashi鈥檚 distinction was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, which states: In the case of one who salvages an item from gentiles or from bandits, if the owners despaired of retrieving it, the one who finds it may keep it. The Gemara infers: If it is known that the owners despaired of retreating it, yes, the finder may keep the item; but in an unspecified situation, where it is not known whether the owners despaired, the finder may not keep the item.

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讘讙讬转讬 讗讘诇 诇住讟讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬诪专 诪讬讬讗砖

Concerning this, Rav Ashi said: They taught this only when the item was stolen by a gentile bandit, because the gentile court judges a case and imposes its verdict with force, and therefore it cannot be assumed that the owners despair. But if the robbery was committed by a Jewish bandit, since Jewish courts merely pronounce a verbal decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim despairs of recovering his property.

转谞谉 讛转诐 注讜专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉

搂 Apropos the discussion with regard to an owner鈥檚 despair of retrieving a lost or stolen item, the Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna there (Kelim 26:8): With regard to hides that are tanned by the owner himself, thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. Hides and leather are susceptible to contracting impurity only if they are in a finished state. If a private individual uses a piece of hide or leather for a certain purpose, e.g., as a cot or a table top, and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is considered a finished product and is susceptible to contracting impurity.

讜砖诇 注讘讚谉 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉

But with regard to hides belonging to a leatherworker, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity. Since this individual sells leather to others, when he uses a piece of leather for a household purpose and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is not considered a finished state, as he is likely to change his mind and sell the leather to one who will process it further and put it to a different use.

砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉 讜砖诇 讙谞讘 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉

The mishna continues: If the hides are those of a thief, who has stolen them from another, the thief鈥檚 thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. If they are those of a robber, his thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hide. The difference is that unlike the case of a thief, who steals items stealthily, the identity of a robber, who takes the item openly, is known to the owner, and he harbors hope of finding him and getting the item back. Consequently, he does not despair of recovering his property.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉 砖诇 讙谞讘 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says that the matters are reversed: In the case of a robber, the robber鈥檚 thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. If the hides are those of a thief, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity, because the owners have not despaired of recovering them and the thief has not acquired the hide. Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 reasoning is that a robber, who seizes items brazenly, is a more difficult criminal to apprehend and bring to justice than a thief.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住转诐 讗讘诇 讘讬讚讜注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬讗讜砖 拽谞讬 专讘讛 讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara analyzes the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first tanna. Ulla says: The dispute is only with regard to an unspecified case, where it is unknown whether or not the owners despaired, but where it is known that the owners despaired, all agree that their despair effects legal acquisition. By contrast, Rabba says: Even in cases where it is known that the owners despaired, there is also a dispute, because although the owner may have expressed despair verbally, he may still hope to retrieve the item.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诇讗 转讬驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讚转谞谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讘诇 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

Abaye said to Rabba: Do not disagree with Ulla, as the formulation of the halakha that we learned in the mishna is in accordance with his opinion. The mishna states that according to Rabbi Shimon, thought does not render the hides of a thief susceptible to ritual impurity because the owners did not despair of retrieving them, and therefore the hides do not belong to the thief. This indicates that the reason the thought of the thief does not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity is that the owners did not despair of retrieving them. But if the owners had despaired of retrieving them, then these items would be his, and his thoughts would render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讬讗讜砖 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

Rabba said to him: We learned the mishna as saying: A thief cannot render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity because there is no true despair for owners of stolen goods, even if they state they have despaired.

转谞谉 谞讟诇讜 诪讜讻住讬谉 讞诪讜专讜 讻讜壮 诪谞讬

We learned in the mishna here that if customs collectors took one鈥檚 donkey and replaced it with a donkey taken from another Jew, or if bandits took his garment and replaced it with a garment taken from another Jew, he may keep these items because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in this mishna?

讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讝诇谉 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽砖讬讗 讙谞讘

If it is in accordance with the Rabbis, who hold that the owner despairs only in the case of a thief who steals secretly, it is difficult, because the mishna indicates that the victim of a robber also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of a customs collector. And if it is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owner despairs only in the case of a robber, it is difficult, because the mishna indicates that the victim of a thief also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of bandits.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬讚讜注 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Granted, according to Ulla, who says that all agree that if it is known that the owners despaired, the individual in possession of the items acquires them, here too it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case where it is known that the owners despaired, and all agree that the recipient of the stolen property may keep it.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

But according to Rabba, who says that even in cases where it is known that the owners despaired, there is also a dispute, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna written? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara answers that the mishna is discussing a case of an armed bandit, who is similar to a robber in that he steals using force and aggression. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, this is identical to the case of a robber, i.e., the customs collector, and there is no reason for the mishna to teach the same halakha twice. The Gemara answers that the mishna in fact teaches the halakha with regard to two different types of robbers, the customs collector and the armed bandit.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讙谞讘 讜讛讙讝诇谉 讜讛讗谞住 讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讜转专讜诪转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专讜转谉 诪注砖专

The Gemara suggests another proof with regard to the dispute between Ulla and Rabba. Come and hear the following baraita: With regard to a thief, a robber, and one who forces another to sell him some-thing, their consecrated items are considered consecrated, and their teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, is considered teruma, and their tithes are considered tithes.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讝诇谉 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽砖讬讗 讙谞讘

The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in this baraita? If it is in accordance with the Rabbis, it is difficult because the baraita assumes that even the victim of a robber despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the halakha that the robber鈥檚 act of consecration or separation of teruma or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the thoughts of a robber do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides. Conversely, if it is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, it is difficult because the baraita assumes that the victim of a thief despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the halakha that the thief’s act of consecration or separation of teruma or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he holds that the thoughts of a thief do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬讚讜注 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Granted, according to Ulla, who says that all agree that if it is known that the owners despaired of recovering their property, the individual in possession of the items acquires them, here too, it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case where it is known that the owners despaired. But according to Rabba, who says that even in cases where it is known that the owners despaired, there is also a dispute, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita written? It is not written in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara answers: Here too, when the baraita mentions a thief it is actually referring to an armed bandit, who is considered a robber because he steals using force and aggression. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property. The Gemara asks: If so, this case of a thief is identical to the case of a robber, and there is no reason for the baraita to teach the same halakha twice. The Gemara answers that the baraita wishes to teach the halakha with regard to two different types of robbers.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诪专 讙谞讘 讻讙讝诇谉

The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that this baraita is referring to an actual thief, and it is written in accordance the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: A thief is like a robber.

讜拽讬诪讗 诇谉 讻讙讝诇谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

And we maintain, as the Gemara concludes below, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi means that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owner despairs of recovering his item once it is stolen by a robber.

讙讜驻讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讙谞讘 讻讙讝诇谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 讜拽谞讬

搂 The Gemara examines the matter itself. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the owners do not despair of recovering their item, and a thief therefore does not acquire the items he steals? Or perhaps he was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owners despair of recovering their property, and a thief therefore acquires the stolen items.

转讗 砖诪注 谞讟诇讜 诪讜讻住讬谉 讞诪讜专讜 讜讻讜壮

The Gemara attempts to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If customs collectors took one鈥檚 donkey and gave him a different donkey that was taken from another Jew in its stead, or if bandits took his garment and gave him a different garment that was taken from a Jew in its stead, these items are now his because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. It is therefore apparent that despair is assumed both in the case of a robber, i.e., the customs collector, and in the case of a thief, i.e., the bandits.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讝诇谉 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽砖讬讗 讙谞讘

The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion is expressed in this mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who assume that the owners despair only in the case of a thief, it is difficult because the mishna assumes that the victim of a robber also despairs of retrieving his property. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who assumes that the owners despair only in the case of a robber, it is difficult because the mishna assumes that the victim of a thief also despairs of retrieving his property.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 讜拽谞讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽谞讬

The Gemara presents the proof: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owners despair of recovering their property, and a thief therefore acquires the stolen items, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and it is due to that reason that a thief acquires the stolen goods.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

But if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of the Rabbis, and a thief therefore does not acquire the stolen goods, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? Since the mishna rules that the owners have presumably despaired with regard to both a thief and a robber, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with an armed bandit, who is considered a robber because he steals using force and aggression, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that despair is assumed in the case of a robber. The Gemara asks: If so, this is identical to the case of a robber, i.e., the mishna鈥檚 first case of the customs collector, and there is no reason for the mishna to teach the same halakha twice. The Gemara answers: The mishna wishes to teach the halakha with regard to two different types of robbers.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讙谞讘 讜讛讙讝诇谉 讜讛讗谞住 讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讜转专讜诪转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专讜转谉 诪注砖专

Come and hear a different proof based upon the aforementioned baraita: With regard to a thief, a robber, and one who forces another to sell him something, their consecrated items are considered consecrated, and their teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, is considered teruma, and their tithes are considered tithes.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讝诇谉 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽砖讬讗 讙谞讘

Whose opinion is expressed in this baraita? If it is in accordance with the Rabbis, it is difficult because the baraita assumes that the victim of a robber also despairs of retrieving his property, and therefore the robber鈥檚 act of consecration or separation of teruma or tithes is valid. Conversely, if it is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, it is difficult because the baraita assumes that the victim of a thief despairs of retrieving his property.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讙谞讘 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讙谞讘 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 诪谞讬

Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owner despairs of recovering his property, it is due to that reason that a thief therefore acquires the stolen items. But if you say that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of the Rabbis, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita written?

讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara responds: When the baraita refers to a thief, it is actually referring to an armed bandit, who is legally considered a robber, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that victims of a robber despair of recovering their property. The Gemara asks: If so, this is identical to the case of a robber that is mentioned in the baraita. The Gemara answers: The baraita wishes to teach the halakha with regard to two different types of robbers.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚诪转谞讬 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬讛 诇讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜讞讜专砖 讘讛 讞诪讜专 讜诪讞诪专 讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉

Rav Ashi said to Rabba: Come and hear a proof from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 own interpretation of the mishna (111b) that states that children who inherit an item that was stolen by their father are obligated to return it to the owner if it is something that serves as a legal guarantee of a loan, e.g., land. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would teach Rabbi Shimon, his son, that the mishna is not referring only to something that may actually serve as a legal guarantee, i.e., land. Rather, it is referring even to a cow that he plows with, or a donkey that he drives by directing it from behind, which the heirs are obligated to return because of the honor of their father.

讟注诪讗 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讙讝诇谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara infers: The reason that the heirs must return the stolen item is due to the honor of their father. But if it were not for the honor of their father, they would not be required to return it. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

讜讻谉 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讜讻谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And so too, with regard to a swarm of bees, if the owners despaired of retrieving the bees, they belong to the one who found them. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason that the mishna includes the case of the bees, which begins with the term: And so too?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 讚拽谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚专讘谞谉 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 住转诪讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讬讗砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗诐 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains: This is what it is saying: The halakha stated by the mishna applies even to a swarm of bees, which is the property of the owners via a rabbinic form of acquisition due to the fact that one cannot effect a legal acquisition of bees by Torah law. It might enter your mind to say that in this case, since one acquires the swarm of bees only by rabbinic law, even where the owners鈥 response is unspecified it can be assumed that they despair of recovering the bees, and the finder may keep them. To counter this, the mishna teaches us that if it is known that the owners of the bees despaired of recovering them, yes, the finder may keep the bees; if they did not despair, no, he may not keep them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka said: A woman or a minor is deemed credible to say: It was from here that this swarm emerged, and it therefore belongs to a certain individual.

讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 讘谞讬 注讚讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪专讚驻讬谉 讗讞专讬讛诐 讜讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 诪住讬讞讬谉 诇驻讬 转讜诪诐 讜讗讜诪专 诪讻讗谉 讬爪讗 谞讞讬诇 讝讛

The Gemara asks: Are a woman and a minor eligible for testimony? The halakha is that women and minors cannot present testimony in court, so how can Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka rule that they are deemed credible? The Gemara explains that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Here, we are dealing with a case where the owners were pursuing the bees, and the woman and the minor were speaking offhandedly and saying: It was from here that this swarm emerged. In this context, it can be assumed that the individual identified as the owner is the real owner of the bees, even in the absence of formal testimony in court.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬谉 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讻砖专 讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘诇讘讚

Having mentioned a case of offhand remarks, the Gemara states that Rav Ashi says: Information gleaned from one who speaks offhandedly is valid only with regard to testimony enabling a woman to remarry, as the Sages were lenient and decreed that the incidental remarks of certain individuals who are not eligible to serve as witnesses may be relied upon in such a case.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 讚拽谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And is it so that one does not rely upon offhand remarks in other situations? But the case in the mishna of a swarm of bees is a case of one who speaks offhandedly, and the halakha is that he is deemed credible. Rav Ashi answered: A swarm of bees is different, as it is the property of its owners via a rabbinic form of acquisition. Consequently, the Sages relied on offhand remarks.

讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 讝讻讜专谞讬 讻砖讗谞讬 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讜专讻讘谞讬 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜谞讬 诪讘讬转 讛住驻专 讜讛驻砖讬讟讜谞讬 讗转 讻转谞转讬 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜谞讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诇注专讘

The Gemara asks: And is there no case where offhand remarks expressed by those who are ineligible to testify in court would be accepted by Torah law? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: There was an incident involving a certain person who was speaking offhandedly and saying: I remember when I was a child and I would still ride on father鈥檚 shoulder. And they took me from school, and removed my tunic, and immersed me in a ritual bath so that I would be able to partake of teruma that evening.

讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 讛讻讬 讜讞讘讬专讬 讘讚讬诇讬谉 诪诪谞讬 讜讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜讻诇 讞诇讜转 讜讛注诇讛讜 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬讜

And Rabbi 岣nina would conclude his retelling of the incident as follows: That individual then went on to say: And my friends would separate themselves from me, and they would call me: Yo岣nan, eater of 岣llot, a reference to the portion of dough given to the priests, which has the same status as teruma. And after hearing this anecdote, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi elevated him to the priesthood and granted him the right to partake of teruma based on his statement. Since it is prohibited for non-priests to consume teruma by Torah law, it is apparent that offhand remarks may be relied upon even with regard to Torah law, even in cases unrelated to enabling a woman to remarry.

讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉

Rav Ashi answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi granted him the right to partake of produce that is teruma only by rabbinic law, as he holds that the requirement to separate teruma after the destruction of the Temple is by rabbinic law. One can still posit that offhand remarks made by individuals who are ineligible to testify in court are not deemed credible with regard to Torah law.

讜讗讻转讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 拽专讟讬讙谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 拽专讟讬讙谞讗 诪砖转注讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘转讬谞讜拽 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 讜讗诪讬 谞砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬爪讗转讬 诇砖讗讜讘 诪讬诐 讚注转讬 注诇 讗诪讬 诇诇拽讜讟 注爪讬诐 讚注转讬 注诇 讗诪讬

The Gemara asks: And still, is there no other case where offhand remarks made by those who are ineligible to testify in court would be accepted by Torah law? But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, didn鈥檛 he say that Rav 岣na of Carthage [Kartigna], and some say that it was Rav A岣 of Carthage, related: An incident came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and some say that this incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to a certain child who was speaking offhandedly and said: My mother and I were captured and held among the gentiles. When I would go out to draw water, my mind was on my mother, and when I would go out to gather wood, my mind was on my mother. Since the child was always conscious of his mother, he was aware that she was not violated by her captors.

讜讛砖讬讗讛 专讘讬 注诇 驻讬讜 诇讻讛讜谞讛

The Gemara concludes the statement of Rav Dimi and explains the challenge: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi married her to a priest based on his statement. Since it is prohibited by Torah law for a priest to marry a woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by Torah law and with whom she cannot establish a marital bond, e.g., a gentile, it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi relied on an offhand remark even with regard to a prohibition by Torah law.

讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜

The Gemara answers: The Sages were lenient with regard to a captured woman. By Torah law, a woman taken captive may be presumed to remain permitted to a priest, and it is the Sages who decreed that she is forbidden due to the concern that she was raped. It is this rabbinic decree that may be disregarded on the basis of offhand remarks.

讗讘诇 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 讗转 住讜讻讜 [讜讻讜壮] 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖讬讛讗 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜拽讜爪抓 住讜讻讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛爪讬诇 讗转 谞讞讬诇讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讚诪讬 住讜讻讜 诪转讜讱 谞讞讬诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

搂 The mishna teaches: But if the bees settled on a branch of a tree, he may not cut off the other鈥檚 branch in order to take the bees, even on the condition that he will later give him the money for it. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: It is a stipulation of the court, which takes effect even without being confirmed by individuals, that one will be permitted to enter another鈥檚 field and cut off another鈥檚 branch in order to salvage his own swarm of bees. And the owner of the field then collects the value of his branch from his fellow鈥檚 swarm.

讜转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖讬讛讗 砖讜驻讱 讬讬谞讜 讜诪爪讬诇 讗转 讚讜讘砖谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讚诪讬 讬讬谞讜 诪转讜讱 讚讜讘砖谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖讬讛讗 诪驻专拽 讗转 注爪讬讜 讜讟讜注谉 驻砖转谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讚诪讬 注爪讬讜 诪转讜讱 驻砖转谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讛谞讞讬诇 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛讗专抓

And it is also a stipulation of the court that one who sees another鈥檚 honey barrel break should pour out his own wine and then use the empty wine barrel to salvage the other鈥檚 honey, which is more expensive than wine. And the owner of the wine then collects the value of his wine from the other鈥檚 honey. And it is also a stipulation of the court that one who sees that another鈥檚 donkey has fallen should unload his own wood from his own donkey and load the other鈥檚 flax, which is more expensive than wood, in its place. And the owner of the wood then collects the value of his wood from the other鈥檚 flax. These stipulations take effect as it was on this condition that Joshua apportioned Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讻讬专 讻诇讬讜 讜住驻专讬讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讜讬爪讗 诇讜 砖诐 讙谞讬讘讛 讘注讬专 讬砖讘注 诇讜 诇讜拽讞 讻诪讛 谞转谉 讜讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗讜 讻诇 讛诪谞讜 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 讜诇拽讞谉 讝讛 讛讬诪谞讜

MISHNA: In a case of one who recognizes his stolen vessels and scrolls in another鈥檚 possession, and a rumor had spread in the city that the former had been the victim of theft, the purchaser, i.e., the one in possession of these items, must take an oath to the victim as to how much money he spent on the purchase, and he then takes that sum of money in exchange for returning the items. And if no such rumor had spread, it is not in the purported victim鈥檚 power to assert that the items were stolen, and he is not entitled to demand their return, as I could say: The items were never stolen; rather, the purported victim sold them to another, and this individual who currently possesses the item purchased them from that other person.

讙诪壮 讜讻讬 讬爪讗 诇讜 砖诐 讙谞讬讘讛 讘注讬专 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 拽讗 诪驻讬拽 砖诪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And if a rumor spread in the city that he had been the victim of theft, what of it? Let us suspect that perhaps he sold the items and he himself is spreading the rumor that they were stolen so that he will be able to buy them back.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗讜 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜注诪讚 讜讛驻讙讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗诪专 谞讙谞讘讜 讻诇讬讬 讻诇 砖讻谉 注讬诇讗 诪爪讗

The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The mishna is discussing a case where people, i.e., guests, came into his house, and he arose at night and shouted [vehifgin], and said: My vessels have been stolen, in which case it seems clear that he was the victim of theft. The Gemara rejects this rationale: On the contrary, the suspicion that he is lying should apply all the more so, as he has found a pretext for claiming that his property was stolen, and it should be suspected that he is taking advantage of the situation dishonestly.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诪讞转专转 讞转讜专讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖诇谞讜 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讬爪讗讜 讜讗谞讘讜专拽专讗讜转 砖诇 讻诇讬诐 注诇 讻转驻讬讛诐 讜讛讻诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讙谞讘讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

Rav Kahana would conclude this halakha by stating in the name of Rav: The mishna is discussing a case where a group of people spent the night in his house. And there was a tunnel that had been burrowed into his house, and the people that stayed overnight as guests in his house left with bundles of vessels on their shoulders, and everyone says: So-and-so鈥檚 vessels were stolen. In such a case, there is clear evidence that the homeowner was the victim of theft.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻诇讬诐 讛讜讜 住驻专讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗诪专讬 谞诪讬 住驻专讬诐

The Gemara questions this explanation: But perhaps only vessels were stolen but scrolls were not. Why must the purchaser return the scrolls as well as the vessels? The Gemara answers that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna is discussing a case where everyone is saying that scrolls were also stolen.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讝讜讟专讬 讜拽讗 讟注讬谉 专讘专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讚拽讗诪专讬 住驻专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara asks: But let us suspect that perhaps only small scrolls were taken, while he is claiming that large scrolls were stolen. If this is the case, he is claiming scrolls that do not belong to him. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The mishna is discussing a case where people are saying: Such and such a scroll and such and such a scroll were stolen, i.e., it is known which scrolls were taken from the homeowner.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讜讜 注转讬拽讬 讜拽讗 讟注讬谉 讞讚转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 讛诇诇讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛诇诇讜 住驻专讬讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara questions this as well: But perhaps the scrolls that were stolen were old and had therefore depreciated in value, while he is claiming that new scrolls were taken. If so, he is claiming scrolls that do not belong to him. Rav said: The mishna is discussing a case where people say explicitly: These are so-and-so鈥檚 vessels and these are so-and-so鈥檚 scrolls. In this case it is known exactly which items were stolen.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讜谞讟诇 讻诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讚诪讬 拽谞谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rav actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav himself say that a burglar who came in and took vessels and left is exempt from paying for those items? What is the reason for this exemption? It is because he purchases them with his blood. Since a homeowner is allowed to kill a burglar, a burglar is exempt from returning the stolen items, based on the principle: One receives the greater punishment. Consequently, if the burglar himself is exempt, how can one who purchases an item from the burglar be required to return it?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚拽谞谞讛讜 讘讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 诇拽讟诇讗 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪住专讜 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诇拽讟诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains: This matter, that one who steals acquires what he stole, applies only to a burglar, as he initially subjected himself to be killed when he broke into the house. But concerning these thieves, who stayed overnight as guests of the homeowner, since they did not break into the house and thereby subject themselves to being killed, they are not exempt from returning the stolen item.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛注砖讜讬 诇诪讻讜专 讻诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 诇诪讻讜专 讻诇讬讜

The Gemara notes that Rava says: We taught that all of these conditions must be met before the purchaser can be forced to return the item only with regard to a homeowner who is wont to sell his vessels, but with regard to a homeowner who is not wont to sell his vessels,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 114

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 114

讗驻讜诪讗 讚讞讚 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讞讚 讗讘诇 讘转专讬 诇讗 讜讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讚诪讙讬住转讗 讗讘诇 讘讬 讚讜讜讗专 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 讞讚 讗诪讜诪转讗 砖讚讜 诇讬讛

based on the word of one witness, which is insufficient evidence according to Jewish law. And we said that this is so only when one individual testifies alone against his fellow Jew, but when two witnesses testify against a Jew, we do not excommunicate them, as their testimony is sufficient evidence according to Jewish law as well, and they have not caused the defendant any unjustified financial loss even according to halakha. And in a case of a single witness also, we said that we excommunicate him only if he testified in a court of villagers [demagista], but if he testified in the official government courthouse [bei davar], he is not excommunicated. This is because they also prescribe an oath to the defendant based on the testimony of a single witness, but they do not expropriate money, in accordance with Jewish law.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讬 讛讜讬谞讗 讘讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讚住诪讻讬 注诇讬讛 讻讘讬 转专讬 诪驻拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讗驻讜诪讬讛 讜诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讚诐 讞砖讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪砖转诪讬讟 诇讛讜 讜诪爪讬 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 转讬拽讜

The Gemara relates that Rav Ashi said: When I was in the academy of Rav Huna, the following dilemma was raised before us: What is the halakha with regard to an important person, whose testimony is relied upon by the gentile courts as if it were the testimony of two witnesses? Since the gentile court will expropriate money based on his word, should the halakha be that he should not testify? Or perhaps, since he is an important person, he cannot escape the authorities who demand his testimony, and he may therefore testify. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讚讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 诇讙讜讬 讗诪爪专讗 讚讘专 讬砖专讗诇 讞讘专讬讛 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 讝讘讬谉 诪讙讜讬 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讙讜讬 诇讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

搂 The Gemara cites another situation where a Jew is excommunicated for causing harm to another Jew. Rav Ashi said: In the case of a Jewish man who sells a gentile a plot of land that is on the border of the property of his fellow Jew, we excommunicate him. What is the reason? If we say it is because he has ignored the right of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field, but doesn鈥檛 the Master say: With regard to one who purchases land from a gentile, and one who sells land to a gentile, there is no right of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field?

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗专讘注讬转 诇讬 讗专讬讗 讗诪爪专讗讬 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚拽讘讬诇 注诇讬讛 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 讚讗转讬 诪讞诪转讬讛

Rather, it is because we say to him on behalf of the owner of the adjacent field: You have placed a lion, i.e., a dangerous individual, on my border, as the gentile might now cause me harm. Consequently, we excommunicate him until he accepts upon himself responsibility for all harm that comes upon the neighbor due to the gentile鈥檚 activities.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讟诇讜 诪讜讻住讬谉 讗转 讞诪讜专讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讜 讞诪讜专 讗讞专 谞讟诇讜 诇住讟讬诐 讗转 讻住讜转讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇讜 讻住讜转 讗讞专转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪转讬讬讗砖讬谉 诪讛谉 讛诪爪讬诇 诪谉 讛谞讛专 讗讜 诪谉 讛讙讬讬住 讗讜 诪谉 讛诇住讟讬谉 讗诐 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讻谉 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 讗诐 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

MISHNA: If customs collectors took one鈥檚 donkey and gave him a different donkey that was taken from another Jew in its stead, or if bandits took his garment and gave him a different garment that was taken from a Jew in its stead, these items are now his because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen, and they may therefore be acquired by another. In a case of one who salvages items from a river, or from a troop [hagayis] of soldiers, or from bandits, if the owners of the items despaired of retrieving them, they are his, i.e., they belong to the one who salvaged them. And so too, with regard to a swarm of bees, if the owners despaired of retrieving the bees, they are his, i.e., they belong to the one who found them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗砖讛 讗讜 拽讟谉 诇讜诪专 诪讻讗谉 讬爪讗 谞讞讬诇 讝讛 讜诪讛诇讱 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛爪讬诇 讗转 谞讞讬诇讜 讜讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 讗转 住讜讻讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 拽讜爪抓 讜谞讜转谉 讗转 讛讚诪讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka said: A woman or a minor, whose testimony is not generally accepted by the court, is deemed credible to say: It was from here that this swarm emerged, and it therefore belongs to a certain individual. And one may walk into another鈥檚 field in order to salvage his own swarm of bees that has relocated there, and if he damaged some property in the process, he must pay for what he has damaged. But if the bees settled on a branch of a tree, he may not cut off the other鈥檚 branch in order to take the bees, even on the condition that he will later give him the money for it. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: He may even cut off the branch and later give him the money for it as compensation.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讗诐 谞讟诇 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 拽住讘专 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜诪注讬拽专讗 讘讗讬住讜专讗 讗转讗 诇讬讚讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who is given an item by a customs collector or a bandit may keep the item. It was taught in a baraita: If he took a donkey from the customs collector, he must return it to the original owners. The Gemara explains: The tanna of this baraita holds that despair alone does not effect legal acquisition. Consequently, the customs collector did not acquire the donkey, and it initially came into the possession of the individual to whom the customs collector gave it illegally, and he is therefore required to return it to the original owner.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诐 讘讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 拽谞讬 诪讬讛讜 讗讬 讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘诪诪讜谉 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇讬 诪讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐

And there are those who say that the baraita means that if he wants to act beyond the letter of the law and comes to return it voluntarily, he should return it to the original owners, but he is not required to return it. What is the reason that he is not required to return it? It is because despair alone effects legal acquisition and the donkey was, therefore, acquired by the Jew when the customs collector gave it to him. Nevertheless, if he said: I do not want to accept money that is not mine, he returns it to the original owners.

讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诇住讟讬诐 讙讜讬 讗讘诇 诇讬住讟讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 住讘专 诇诪讞专 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if customs collectors or bandits replaced one鈥檚 item with one taken from another Jew, these items are now his because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. In this regard, Rav Ashi says: They taught that the owners certainly despaired of recovering their property only when it was stolen by a gentile bandit, but if it was taken by a Jewish bandit, no, the owner did not necessarily despair of recovering it. This is because the victim of the theft might reason: Tomorrow, I will take him to court and force him to return what he stole.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讚专讘讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讙讜讬诐 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讘讙讬转讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讗砖 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬诪专 诪讬讬讗砖

Rav Yosef objects to this: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable: When dealing with gentiles, who judge a case and impose their verdicts with force, he does not despair because he realizes that the gentile court will enforce the law. By contrast, when dealing with a Jew, since Jewish courts merely pronounce a verbal decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim despairs of recovering his property.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讗住讬驻讗 讗讬转诪专 讛诪爪讬诇 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讜诪谉 讛诇住讟讬诐 讗诐 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 住转诪讗 诇讗

Rather, if Rav Ashi鈥檚 distinction was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, which states: In the case of one who salvages an item from gentiles or from bandits, if the owners despaired of retrieving it, the one who finds it may keep it. The Gemara infers: If it is known that the owners despaired of retreating it, yes, the finder may keep the item; but in an unspecified situation, where it is not known whether the owners despaired, the finder may not keep the item.

诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讙讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讘讙讬转讬 讗讘诇 诇住讟讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪讬诪专 诪讬讬讗砖

Concerning this, Rav Ashi said: They taught this only when the item was stolen by a gentile bandit, because the gentile court judges a case and imposes its verdict with force, and therefore it cannot be assumed that the owners despair. But if the robbery was committed by a Jewish bandit, since Jewish courts merely pronounce a verbal decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim despairs of recovering his property.

转谞谉 讛转诐 注讜专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉

搂 Apropos the discussion with regard to an owner鈥檚 despair of retrieving a lost or stolen item, the Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna there (Kelim 26:8): With regard to hides that are tanned by the owner himself, thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. Hides and leather are susceptible to contracting impurity only if they are in a finished state. If a private individual uses a piece of hide or leather for a certain purpose, e.g., as a cot or a table top, and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is considered a finished product and is susceptible to contracting impurity.

讜砖诇 注讘讚谉 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉

But with regard to hides belonging to a leatherworker, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity. Since this individual sells leather to others, when he uses a piece of leather for a household purpose and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is not considered a finished state, as he is likely to change his mind and sell the leather to one who will process it further and put it to a different use.

砖诇 讙讝诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉 讜砖诇 讙谞讘 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉

The mishna continues: If the hides are those of a thief, who has stolen them from another, the thief鈥檚 thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. If they are those of a robber, his thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hide. The difference is that unlike the case of a thief, who steals items stealthily, the identity of a robber, who takes the item openly, is known to the owner, and he harbors hope of finding him and getting the item back. Consequently, he does not despair of recovering his property.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞讬诇讜祝 讛讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 讙讝诇谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉 砖诇 讙谞讘 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讟诪讗转谉 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Shimon says that the matters are reversed: In the case of a robber, the robber鈥檚 thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. If the hides are those of a thief, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity, because the owners have not despaired of recovering them and the thief has not acquired the hide. Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 reasoning is that a robber, who seizes items brazenly, is a more difficult criminal to apprehend and bring to justice than a thief.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘住转诐 讗讘诇 讘讬讚讜注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬讗讜砖 拽谞讬 专讘讛 讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara analyzes the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first tanna. Ulla says: The dispute is only with regard to an unspecified case, where it is unknown whether or not the owners despaired, but where it is known that the owners despaired, all agree that their despair effects legal acquisition. By contrast, Rabba says: Even in cases where it is known that the owners despaired, there is also a dispute, because although the owner may have expressed despair verbally, he may still hope to retrieve the item.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诇讗 转讬驻诇讜讙 注诇讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讚转谞谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讜讜转讬讛 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讘诇 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

Abaye said to Rabba: Do not disagree with Ulla, as the formulation of the halakha that we learned in the mishna is in accordance with his opinion. The mishna states that according to Rabbi Shimon, thought does not render the hides of a thief susceptible to ritual impurity because the owners did not despair of retrieving them, and therefore the hides do not belong to the thief. This indicates that the reason the thought of the thief does not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity is that the owners did not despair of retrieving them. But if the owners had despaired of retrieving them, then these items would be his, and his thoughts would render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讬讗讜砖 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

Rabba said to him: We learned the mishna as saying: A thief cannot render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity because there is no true despair for owners of stolen goods, even if they state they have despaired.

转谞谉 谞讟诇讜 诪讜讻住讬谉 讞诪讜专讜 讻讜壮 诪谞讬

We learned in the mishna here that if customs collectors took one鈥檚 donkey and replaced it with a donkey taken from another Jew, or if bandits took his garment and replaced it with a garment taken from another Jew, he may keep these items because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in this mishna?

讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讝诇谉 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽砖讬讗 讙谞讘

If it is in accordance with the Rabbis, who hold that the owner despairs only in the case of a thief who steals secretly, it is difficult, because the mishna indicates that the victim of a robber also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of a customs collector. And if it is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owner despairs only in the case of a robber, it is difficult, because the mishna indicates that the victim of a thief also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of bandits.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬讚讜注 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Granted, according to Ulla, who says that all agree that if it is known that the owners despaired, the individual in possession of the items acquires them, here too it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case where it is known that the owners despaired, and all agree that the recipient of the stolen property may keep it.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

But according to Rabba, who says that even in cases where it is known that the owners despaired, there is also a dispute, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna written? It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara answers that the mishna is discussing a case of an armed bandit, who is similar to a robber in that he steals using force and aggression. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara asks: If so, this is identical to the case of a robber, i.e., the customs collector, and there is no reason for the mishna to teach the same halakha twice. The Gemara answers that the mishna in fact teaches the halakha with regard to two different types of robbers, the customs collector and the armed bandit.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讙谞讘 讜讛讙讝诇谉 讜讛讗谞住 讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讜转专讜诪转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专讜转谉 诪注砖专

The Gemara suggests another proof with regard to the dispute between Ulla and Rabba. Come and hear the following baraita: With regard to a thief, a robber, and one who forces another to sell him some-thing, their consecrated items are considered consecrated, and their teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, is considered teruma, and their tithes are considered tithes.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讝诇谉 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽砖讬讗 讙谞讘

The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in this baraita? If it is in accordance with the Rabbis, it is difficult because the baraita assumes that even the victim of a robber despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the halakha that the robber鈥檚 act of consecration or separation of teruma or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the thoughts of a robber do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides. Conversely, if it is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, it is difficult because the baraita assumes that the victim of a thief despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the halakha that the thief’s act of consecration or separation of teruma or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he holds that the thoughts of a thief do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讬讚讜注 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讘讬讚讜注 谞诪讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Granted, according to Ulla, who says that all agree that if it is known that the owners despaired of recovering their property, the individual in possession of the items acquires them, here too, it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case where it is known that the owners despaired. But according to Rabba, who says that even in cases where it is known that the owners despaired, there is also a dispute, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita written? It is not written in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara answers: Here too, when the baraita mentions a thief it is actually referring to an armed bandit, who is considered a robber because he steals using force and aggression. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property. The Gemara asks: If so, this case of a thief is identical to the case of a robber, and there is no reason for the baraita to teach the same halakha twice. The Gemara answers that the baraita wishes to teach the halakha with regard to two different types of robbers.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诪专 讙谞讘 讻讙讝诇谉

The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that this baraita is referring to an actual thief, and it is written in accordance the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: A thief is like a robber.

讜拽讬诪讗 诇谉 讻讙讝诇谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

And we maintain, as the Gemara concludes below, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi means that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owner despairs of recovering his item once it is stolen by a robber.

讙讜驻讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讙谞讘 讻讙讝诇谉 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 讜拽谞讬

搂 The Gemara examines the matter itself. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the owners do not despair of recovering their item, and a thief therefore does not acquire the items he steals? Or perhaps he was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owners despair of recovering their property, and a thief therefore acquires the stolen items.

转讗 砖诪注 谞讟诇讜 诪讜讻住讬谉 讞诪讜专讜 讜讻讜壮

The Gemara attempts to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If customs collectors took one鈥檚 donkey and gave him a different donkey that was taken from another Jew in its stead, or if bandits took his garment and gave him a different garment that was taken from a Jew in its stead, these items are now his because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. It is therefore apparent that despair is assumed both in the case of a robber, i.e., the customs collector, and in the case of a thief, i.e., the bandits.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讝诇谉 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽砖讬讗 讙谞讘

The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion is expressed in this mishna? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who assume that the owners despair only in the case of a thief, it is difficult because the mishna assumes that the victim of a robber also despairs of retrieving his property. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who assumes that the owners despair only in the case of a robber, it is difficult because the mishna assumes that the victim of a thief also despairs of retrieving his property.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 讜拽谞讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽谞讬

The Gemara presents the proof: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owners despair of recovering their property, and a thief therefore acquires the stolen items, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and it is due to that reason that a thief acquires the stolen goods.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

But if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of the Rabbis, and a thief therefore does not acquire the stolen goods, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? Since the mishna rules that the owners have presumably despaired with regard to both a thief and a robber, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with an armed bandit, who is considered a robber because he steals using force and aggression, and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that despair is assumed in the case of a robber. The Gemara asks: If so, this is identical to the case of a robber, i.e., the mishna鈥檚 first case of the customs collector, and there is no reason for the mishna to teach the same halakha twice. The Gemara answers: The mishna wishes to teach the halakha with regard to two different types of robbers.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讙谞讘 讜讛讙讝诇谉 讜讛讗谞住 讛拽讚砖谉 讛拽讚砖 讜转专讜诪转谉 转专讜诪讛 讜诪注砖专讜转谉 诪注砖专

Come and hear a different proof based upon the aforementioned baraita: With regard to a thief, a robber, and one who forces another to sell him something, their consecrated items are considered consecrated, and their teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, is considered teruma, and their tithes are considered tithes.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讙讝诇谉 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽砖讬讗 讙谞讘

Whose opinion is expressed in this baraita? If it is in accordance with the Rabbis, it is difficult because the baraita assumes that the victim of a robber also despairs of retrieving his property, and therefore the robber鈥檚 act of consecration or separation of teruma or tithes is valid. Conversely, if it is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, it is difficult because the baraita assumes that the victim of a thief despairs of retrieving his property.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讙谞讘 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讙谞讘 讻讙讝诇谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讗 诪谞讬

Granted, if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the owner despairs of recovering his property, it is due to that reason that a thief therefore acquires the stolen items. But if you say that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of the Rabbis, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita written?

讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara responds: When the baraita refers to a thief, it is actually referring to an armed bandit, who is legally considered a robber, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that victims of a robber despair of recovering their property. The Gemara asks: If so, this is identical to the case of a robber that is mentioned in the baraita. The Gemara answers: The baraita wishes to teach the halakha with regard to two different types of robbers.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚诪转谞讬 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专讬讛 诇讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讛 讜讞讜专砖 讘讛 讞诪讜专 讜诪讞诪专 讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉

Rav Ashi said to Rabba: Come and hear a proof from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 own interpretation of the mishna (111b) that states that children who inherit an item that was stolen by their father are obligated to return it to the owner if it is something that serves as a legal guarantee of a loan, e.g., land. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would teach Rabbi Shimon, his son, that the mishna is not referring only to something that may actually serve as a legal guarantee, i.e., land. Rather, it is referring even to a cow that he plows with, or a donkey that he drives by directing it from behind, which the heirs are obligated to return because of the honor of their father.

讟注诪讗 诪驻谞讬 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉 讛讗 诇讗讜 讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讛谉 诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 讙讝诇谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara infers: The reason that the heirs must return the stolen item is due to the honor of their father. But if it were not for the honor of their father, they would not be required to return it. Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was saying that the halakha that applies to a thief is like the halakha that applies to a robber according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

讜讻谉 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 诪讗讬 讜讻谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And so too, with regard to a swarm of bees, if the owners despaired of retrieving the bees, they belong to the one who found them. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason that the mishna includes the case of the bees, which begins with the term: And so too?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 讚拽谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚专讘谞谉 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 住转诪讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讬讗砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗诐 谞转讬讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains: This is what it is saying: The halakha stated by the mishna applies even to a swarm of bees, which is the property of the owners via a rabbinic form of acquisition due to the fact that one cannot effect a legal acquisition of bees by Torah law. It might enter your mind to say that in this case, since one acquires the swarm of bees only by rabbinic law, even where the owners鈥 response is unspecified it can be assumed that they despair of recovering the bees, and the finder may keep them. To counter this, the mishna teaches us that if it is known that the owners of the bees despaired of recovering them, yes, the finder may keep the bees; if they did not despair, no, he may not keep them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 谞讗诪谞转 讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka said: A woman or a minor is deemed credible to say: It was from here that this swarm emerged, and it therefore belongs to a certain individual.

讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 讘谞讬 注讚讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪专讚驻讬谉 讗讞专讬讛诐 讜讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 诪住讬讞讬谉 诇驻讬 转讜诪诐 讜讗讜诪专 诪讻讗谉 讬爪讗 谞讞讬诇 讝讛

The Gemara asks: Are a woman and a minor eligible for testimony? The halakha is that women and minors cannot present testimony in court, so how can Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka rule that they are deemed credible? The Gemara explains that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Here, we are dealing with a case where the owners were pursuing the bees, and the woman and the minor were speaking offhandedly and saying: It was from here that this swarm emerged. In this context, it can be assumed that the individual identified as the owner is the real owner of the bees, even in the absence of formal testimony in court.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬谉 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讻砖专 讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘诇讘讚

Having mentioned a case of offhand remarks, the Gemara states that Rav Ashi says: Information gleaned from one who speaks offhandedly is valid only with regard to testimony enabling a woman to remarry, as the Sages were lenient and decreed that the incidental remarks of certain individuals who are not eligible to serve as witnesses may be relied upon in such a case.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 谞讞讬诇 砖诇 讚讘讜专讬诐 讚拽谞讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讗

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And is it so that one does not rely upon offhand remarks in other situations? But the case in the mishna of a swarm of bees is a case of one who speaks offhandedly, and the halakha is that he is deemed credible. Rav Ashi answered: A swarm of bees is different, as it is the property of its owners via a rabbinic form of acquisition. Consequently, the Sages relied on offhand remarks.

讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 讝讻讜专谞讬 讻砖讗谞讬 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讜专讻讘谞讬 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜谞讬 诪讘讬转 讛住驻专 讜讛驻砖讬讟讜谞讬 讗转 讻转谞转讬 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜谞讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诇注专讘

The Gemara asks: And is there no case where offhand remarks expressed by those who are ineligible to testify in court would be accepted by Torah law? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel says: There was an incident involving a certain person who was speaking offhandedly and saying: I remember when I was a child and I would still ride on father鈥檚 shoulder. And they took me from school, and removed my tunic, and immersed me in a ritual bath so that I would be able to partake of teruma that evening.

讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 讛讻讬 讜讞讘讬专讬 讘讚讬诇讬谉 诪诪谞讬 讜讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜讻诇 讞诇讜转 讜讛注诇讛讜 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬讜

And Rabbi 岣nina would conclude his retelling of the incident as follows: That individual then went on to say: And my friends would separate themselves from me, and they would call me: Yo岣nan, eater of 岣llot, a reference to the portion of dough given to the priests, which has the same status as teruma. And after hearing this anecdote, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi elevated him to the priesthood and granted him the right to partake of teruma based on his statement. Since it is prohibited for non-priests to consume teruma by Torah law, it is apparent that offhand remarks may be relied upon even with regard to Torah law, even in cases unrelated to enabling a woman to remarry.

讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉

Rav Ashi answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi granted him the right to partake of produce that is teruma only by rabbinic law, as he holds that the requirement to separate teruma after the destruction of the Temple is by rabbinic law. One can still posit that offhand remarks made by individuals who are ineligible to testify in court are not deemed credible with regard to Torah law.

讜讗讻转讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讗 拽专讟讬讙谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 拽专讟讬讙谞讗 诪砖转注讬 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讘转讬谞讜拽 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 讗谞讬 讜讗诪讬 谞砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬爪讗转讬 诇砖讗讜讘 诪讬诐 讚注转讬 注诇 讗诪讬 诇诇拽讜讟 注爪讬诐 讚注转讬 注诇 讗诪讬

The Gemara asks: And still, is there no other case where offhand remarks made by those who are ineligible to testify in court would be accepted by Torah law? But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, didn鈥檛 he say that Rav 岣na of Carthage [Kartigna], and some say that it was Rav A岣 of Carthage, related: An incident came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and some say that this incident came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to a certain child who was speaking offhandedly and said: My mother and I were captured and held among the gentiles. When I would go out to draw water, my mind was on my mother, and when I would go out to gather wood, my mind was on my mother. Since the child was always conscious of his mother, he was aware that she was not violated by her captors.

讜讛砖讬讗讛 专讘讬 注诇 驻讬讜 诇讻讛讜谞讛

The Gemara concludes the statement of Rav Dimi and explains the challenge: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi married her to a priest based on his statement. Since it is prohibited by Torah law for a priest to marry a woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man forbidden to her by Torah law and with whom she cannot establish a marital bond, e.g., a gentile, it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi relied on an offhand remark even with regard to a prohibition by Torah law.

讘砖讘讜讬讛 讛拽讬诇讜

The Gemara answers: The Sages were lenient with regard to a captured woman. By Torah law, a woman taken captive may be presumed to remain permitted to a priest, and it is the Sages who decreed that she is forbidden due to the concern that she was raped. It is this rabbinic decree that may be disregarded on the basis of offhand remarks.

讗讘诇 诇讗 讬拽讜抓 讗转 住讜讻讜 [讜讻讜壮] 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讜诪专 转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖讬讛讗 讬讜专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜拽讜爪抓 住讜讻讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛爪讬诇 讗转 谞讞讬诇讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讚诪讬 住讜讻讜 诪转讜讱 谞讞讬诇讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜

搂 The mishna teaches: But if the bees settled on a branch of a tree, he may not cut off the other鈥檚 branch in order to take the bees, even on the condition that he will later give him the money for it. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: It is a stipulation of the court, which takes effect even without being confirmed by individuals, that one will be permitted to enter another鈥檚 field and cut off another鈥檚 branch in order to salvage his own swarm of bees. And the owner of the field then collects the value of his branch from his fellow鈥檚 swarm.

讜转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖讬讛讗 砖讜驻讱 讬讬谞讜 讜诪爪讬诇 讗转 讚讜讘砖谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讚诪讬 讬讬谞讜 诪转讜讱 讚讜讘砖谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜转谞讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖讬讛讗 诪驻专拽 讗转 注爪讬讜 讜讟讜注谉 驻砖转谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜谞讜讟诇 讚诪讬 注爪讬讜 诪转讜讱 驻砖转谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讛谞讞讬诇 讬讛讜砖注 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗转 讛讗专抓

And it is also a stipulation of the court that one who sees another鈥檚 honey barrel break should pour out his own wine and then use the empty wine barrel to salvage the other鈥檚 honey, which is more expensive than wine. And the owner of the wine then collects the value of his wine from the other鈥檚 honey. And it is also a stipulation of the court that one who sees that another鈥檚 donkey has fallen should unload his own wood from his own donkey and load the other鈥檚 flax, which is more expensive than wood, in its place. And the owner of the wood then collects the value of his wood from the other鈥檚 flax. These stipulations take effect as it was on this condition that Joshua apportioned Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讻讬专 讻诇讬讜 讜住驻专讬讜 讘讬讚 讗讞专 讜讬爪讗 诇讜 砖诐 讙谞讬讘讛 讘注讬专 讬砖讘注 诇讜 诇讜拽讞 讻诪讛 谞转谉 讜讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗讜 讻诇 讛诪谞讜 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪讻专谉 诇讗讞专 讜诇拽讞谉 讝讛 讛讬诪谞讜

MISHNA: In a case of one who recognizes his stolen vessels and scrolls in another鈥檚 possession, and a rumor had spread in the city that the former had been the victim of theft, the purchaser, i.e., the one in possession of these items, must take an oath to the victim as to how much money he spent on the purchase, and he then takes that sum of money in exchange for returning the items. And if no such rumor had spread, it is not in the purported victim鈥檚 power to assert that the items were stolen, and he is not entitled to demand their return, as I could say: The items were never stolen; rather, the purported victim sold them to another, and this individual who currently possesses the item purchased them from that other person.

讙诪壮 讜讻讬 讬爪讗 诇讜 砖诐 讙谞讬讘讛 讘注讬专 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讜讗 谞讬讛讜 拽讗 诪驻讬拽 砖诪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And if a rumor spread in the city that he had been the victim of theft, what of it? Let us suspect that perhaps he sold the items and he himself is spreading the rumor that they were stolen so that he will be able to buy them back.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗讜 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜注诪讚 讜讛驻讙讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗诪专 谞讙谞讘讜 讻诇讬讬 讻诇 砖讻谉 注讬诇讗 诪爪讗

The Gemara answers that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The mishna is discussing a case where people, i.e., guests, came into his house, and he arose at night and shouted [vehifgin], and said: My vessels have been stolen, in which case it seems clear that he was the victim of theft. The Gemara rejects this rationale: On the contrary, the suspicion that he is lying should apply all the more so, as he has found a pretext for claiming that his property was stolen, and it should be suspected that he is taking advantage of the situation dishonestly.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诪讞转专转 讞转讜专讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讘谞讬 讗讚诐 砖诇谞讜 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讬爪讗讜 讜讗谞讘讜专拽专讗讜转 砖诇 讻诇讬诐 注诇 讻转驻讬讛诐 讜讛讻诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讙谞讘讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

Rav Kahana would conclude this halakha by stating in the name of Rav: The mishna is discussing a case where a group of people spent the night in his house. And there was a tunnel that had been burrowed into his house, and the people that stayed overnight as guests in his house left with bundles of vessels on their shoulders, and everyone says: So-and-so鈥檚 vessels were stolen. In such a case, there is clear evidence that the homeowner was the victim of theft.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻诇讬诐 讛讜讜 住驻专讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗诪专讬 谞诪讬 住驻专讬诐

The Gemara questions this explanation: But perhaps only vessels were stolen but scrolls were not. Why must the purchaser return the scrolls as well as the vessels? The Gemara answers that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna is discussing a case where everyone is saying that scrolls were also stolen.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讝讜讟专讬 讜拽讗 讟注讬谉 专讘专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讚拽讗诪专讬 住驻专 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara asks: But let us suspect that perhaps only small scrolls were taken, while he is claiming that large scrolls were stolen. If this is the case, he is claiming scrolls that do not belong to him. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The mishna is discussing a case where people are saying: Such and such a scroll and such and such a scroll were stolen, i.e., it is known which scrolls were taken from the homeowner.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讜讜 注转讬拽讬 讜拽讗 讟注讬谉 讞讚转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专讬 讛诇诇讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛诇诇讜 住驻专讬讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara questions this as well: But perhaps the scrolls that were stolen were old and had therefore depreciated in value, while he is claiming that new scrolls were taken. If so, he is claiming scrolls that do not belong to him. Rav said: The mishna is discussing a case where people say explicitly: These are so-and-so鈥檚 vessels and these are so-and-so鈥檚 scrolls. In this case it is known exactly which items were stolen.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讜谞讟诇 讻诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讚诪讬 拽谞谞讛讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rav actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav himself say that a burglar who came in and took vessels and left is exempt from paying for those items? What is the reason for this exemption? It is because he purchases them with his blood. Since a homeowner is allowed to kill a burglar, a burglar is exempt from returning the stolen items, based on the principle: One receives the greater punishment. Consequently, if the burglar himself is exempt, how can one who purchases an item from the burglar be required to return it?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚拽谞谞讛讜 讘讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪住专 谞驻砖讬讛 诇拽讟诇讗 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 诪住专讜 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诇拽讟诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara explains: This matter, that one who steals acquires what he stole, applies only to a burglar, as he initially subjected himself to be killed when he broke into the house. But concerning these thieves, who stayed overnight as guests of the homeowner, since they did not break into the house and thereby subject themselves to being killed, they are not exempt from returning the stolen item.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛注砖讜讬 诇诪讻讜专 讻诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 诇诪讻讜专 讻诇讬讜

The Gemara notes that Rava says: We taught that all of these conditions must be met before the purchaser can be forced to return the item only with regard to a homeowner who is wont to sell his vessels, but with regard to a homeowner who is not wont to sell his vessels,

Scroll To Top